REGINA v. JUNG [2006] NSWSC 658

REGINA v. JUNG [2006] NSWSC 658

Dr. Sutisno’s expert opinion evidence based on morphological analysis is admissible under s.79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) as it is relevant circumstantial evidence regarding similarities in facial features between CCTV and forensic photographs. Dr. Sutisno possesses sufficient specialised knowledge in anatomy relevant to the analysis, and her methodology, though qualitative and not using measurable data, was disclosed. The evidence’s probative value is not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s.137. Issues as to reliability and weight are matters for the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Admissibility Ruling on Expert Opinion Evidence (voir Dire) During Trial
Outcome
Opinion evidence of Dr. Sutisno is admissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'expert Opinion' 'forensic Identification' 'morphological Analysis' 'circumstantial Identification Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'expert Opinion' 'forensic Identification' 'morphological Analysis' 'circumstantial Identification Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Admissibility Ruling on Expert Opinion Evidence (voir Dire) During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr. Sutisno’s expert opinion evidence based on morphological analysis is admissible under s.79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether the opinion evidence of Dr. Sutisno should be excluded under s.137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) due to danger of unfair prejudice']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr. Sutisno’s expert opinion evidence based on morphological analysis is admissible under s.79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) as it is relevant circumstantial evidence regarding similarities in facial features between CCTV and forensic photographs. Dr. Sutisno possesses sufficient specialised knowledge in anatomy relevant to the analysis, and her methodology, though qualitative and not using measurable data, was disclosed. The evidence’s probative value is not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s.137. Issues as to reliability and weight are matters for the jury.

Court Disposition

Opinion evidence of Dr. Sutisno is admissible.

Orders

  • ['The opinion evidence of Dr. Sutisno is admissible under s.79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']